Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by GUT 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by GUT 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (60 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (8 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
General Discussion: The man who named JtR! - (1 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2016, 11:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

Here´s a little something for people to chew on and froth over. I only noticed it in combination with a discussion (well...) I was having with Dusty (Dr Very Very Strange).

In his interview in Lloyds Weekly, Robert Paul claims that he was the one walking to Mizen and telling him about the woman in Bucks Row.

The inquest material, however, points in another direction. Mizen is adamant that Lechmere was the man talking to him, and the coroner has to ask the PC if there was another man present as Mizen and Lechmere spoke. Mizen acknowledges this, and in an article in the Echo, Paul is described as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

I have pointed to how this seemingly means that Paul distanced himself from Mizen and Lechmere, and thus the possibility is there that Lechmere was able to misinform Mizen without Paul noticing it.

This is the backdrop. Here is what Paul was recorded as saying about the manner in which the carmen got to Mizen and what happened when they arrived:

He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered. (Daily News, Woodford Times)

The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. (Daily Telegraph)

Witness and the man who had stopped him walked down Buck's-row to find a policeman, which they did in a few minutes. (Illustrated Police News)

They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met. They both walked on and met a policeman at the corner of Montague street. (St James Gazette)

Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. (Times)

From this, we can conclude that the two carmen walked together to the junction of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street, where they found Mizen, who was engaged in knocking people up.

There can be no doubt about this. It dissolves the picture given in the Lloyds Weekly interview, where Paul leaves Lechmere out of the action altogether after the examination in Bucks Row.
It is clear that the carmen walked together to Mizen.

It has therefore always seemed a riddle that The Morning Advertiser and The Evening News presented a third version:

Robert Paul, Forster street, Whitechapel, said - I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway, When I got close to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman. (Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser)

This does not make any sense at all. We know that Paul did not send Lechmere to find a PC - the two walked together in search of a policeman.

So how can we make this dovetail with the other papers? Well, it may well be quite easy:
The carmen decided to look for a PC together.
They left the body together.
They walked down Bucks Row together.
They approached Mizen together.

...but then Paul said to Lechmere "You go and talk to him, and I will continue down Hanbury Street" - exactly as suggested by the Echo.

If we now return to the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, we must ask ourselves "If Paul was not even engaged in discussion with Mizen, and if he was out of earshot, then why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was so cold that she must have been lying in the street for the longest time? Why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was dead?

From what source does he know what Mizen was told?

Answer: He knows it beause Lechmere spoke to Mizen, and then he said to Paul that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row was dead, and that this had not made Mizen react accordingly - instead he had gone on knocking people up as if he didn´t care about the poor woman.

And the reason that Paul said that he had told Mizen that the woman was all cold and must have lain long in the street, would - if my hunch is correct - have been because Lechmere sold that view to him; "Did you feel how COLD she was?" "She must have lain there for hours - lazy, incompetent police!"

This is how it all fits into the picture, the way I see things.

What we must keep in mind is that all the papers reported from the same inquest proceedings, their reporters heard Paul saying the same thing, and he could not have said BOTH that he and the other man walked together to Mizen AND that he sent Lechmere to the PC. He said only the first thing. The other thing, Pauls assertion that he sent Lechmere for a PC, must therefore adher to something else.

And WHAM! There´s the next nail in the Lechmere coffin.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-07-2016 at 11:08 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-07-2016, 12:54 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,651
Default

I think this nail is one of speculation (at worst), or creative nonfiction (at best).

It MAY have happened that way, or it MAY NOT have happened at all.

A simpler explanation is that Paul was an attention-seeker with a distrust of policemen, and phrased his interview accordingly.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-07-2016, 01:00 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
I think this nail is one of speculation (at worst), or creative nonfiction (at best).

It MAY have happened that way, or it MAY NOT have happened at all.

A simpler explanation is that Paul was an attention-seeker with a distrust of policemen, and phrased his interview accordingly.
But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-07-2016 at 01:12 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-07-2016, 02:43 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.
Hi Fisherman,

What is your point?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-07-2016, 03:48 PM
Rainbow Rainbow is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen
Its very clear Fisherman, otherwise The Coroner would have asked Paul in the inquest what had he told Mizen, and he would have asked him if they realy told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman, as he did when he asked Lechmere the same question, especially after there was contradiction between Lechmere and Mizen about this very point.


Rainbow°
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-07-2016, 05:30 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 804
Default

My issue with this piece, Fisherman, comes from The Echo. September 3rd. At the inquest, Charles Cross says "the other man" [Paul] told PC [Mizen] that he [Paul] thought that she was dead.

Aside. Who touched what? Again from The Echo. Cross says he took face and hands. In other reports, it,s Paul.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-07-2016, 06:06 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post


There can be no doubt about this. It dissolves the picture given in the Lloyds Weekly interview, where Paul leaves Lechmere out of the action altogether after the examination in Bucks Row.
It is clear that the carmen walked together to Mizen.

We can agree on something.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It has therefore always seemed a riddle that The Morning Advertiser and The Evening News presented a third version:

Robert Paul, Forster street, Whitechapel, said - I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four. As I was passing up Buck's row I saw a man standing in the roadway, When I got close to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road. There was a woman lying across the gateway, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman. (Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser)

This does not make any sense at all. We know that Paul did not send Lechmere to find a PC - the two walked together in search of a policeman.
Agree again.

The obvious conclusion is that the reports are wrong.

To suggest another alternative is fine, however it will need evidence to prove it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So how can we make this dovetail with the other papers? Well, it may well be quite easy:
The carmen decided to look for a PC together.
They left the body together.
They walked down Bucks Row together.
They approached Mizen together.

...but then Paul said to Lechmere "You go and talk to him, and I will continue down Hanbury Street" - exactly as suggested by the Echo.
I know you are trying to make a point, so the invented quotes are fine, but they remain that invention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

If we now return to the Lloyds Weekly interview with Paul, we must ask ourselves "If Paul was not even engaged in discussion with Mizen, and if he was out of earshot, then why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was so cold that she must have been lying in the street for the longest time? Why does he say that he told Mizen that the woman was dead?
Why do you have a starting point of assuming he is not telling the truth?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
From what source does he know what Mizen was told?

Answer: He knows it beause Lechmere spoke to Mizen, and then he said to Paul that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row was dead, and that this had not made Mizen react accordingly - instead he had gone on knocking people up as if he didn´t care about the poor woman.

Hang on, you have just suggested that Paul carried on down Hanbury Street leaving Lechmere and Mizen alone:what happens? Does Lechmere chase after Paul? A man he does not know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And the reason that Paul said that he had told Mizen that the woman was all cold and must have lain long in the street, would - if my hunch is correct - have been because Lechmere sold that view to him; "Did you feel how COLD she was?" "She must have lain there for hours - lazy, incompetent police!"

Again it is flight of fancy, fuelled by "lechmere is the killer"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

This is how it all fits into the picture, the way I see things.



What we must keep in mind is that all the papers reported from the same inquest proceedings, their reporters heard Paul saying the same thing, and he could not have said BOTH that he and the other man walked together to Mizen AND that he sent Lechmere to the PC. He said only the first thing. The other thing, Pauls assertion that he sent Lechmere for a PC, must therefore adher to something else.
Maybe, however they could just as easily be totally erroneous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And WHAM! There´s the next nail in the Lechmere coffin.

Actually its several removed because it is a premature burial.




Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-07-2016, 06:15 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 804
Default

Actually. When you put Robert Paul,s interview with Lloyd,s and The Echo report of Charles Cross at the inquest side-by-side, it sounds like...

Paul did indeed depart (separate from Lechmere) first, arranging her dress before he left.
Cross gives the impression that he left soon after.

Could it have been that PC Mizen was approached at different intervals? The first man, he dismisses. But when the second man, Cross, approaches him, he decides that it may be worth the investigation.

It,s the part of ,,the other man,, that is throwing me for a loop. What does Cross mean by this if he,s indicating that they left her body at different times?
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-07-2016, 10:29 PM
Rainbow Rainbow is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 284
Default

Again it is very clear:

Both Lechmere and Paul walked to Mizen

Mizen was knocking on the doors.

Lechmere: hey officer, you must go to Buck's Row, a woman is laying there

Mizen still knocking on the doors

Paul felt he is ignoring them, he said:

hey man, the woman is cold and she might be dead common man....

and because he was behind time he couldn't wait more, and said to Lechmere:

I will leave you to deal with him, goodbye.

He left him and went towards Hunbery street.

Before Lechmere could go too, Mizen came to him, since Lechmere was the one who came first and started talking to him

Mizen: you said in Buck's Row the woman was laying ?

Lechmere: yes , and there is a policeman there who wants you now!

Mizen: Alright, I am going.

and thats all.


Rainbow°

Last edited by Rainbow : 11-07-2016 at 10:45 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-07-2016, 11:02 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
But this is not about the interview. This is about how the inquest testimony was reported by the Morning Advertiser as claiming that Paul said that he had sent Lechmere for a policeman.

And we know that when it comes to the trek from the murder spot to Mizen, Paul said that the two carmen walked there in company.

So where does all of a sudden the Morning Advertisers claim come from?

If Paul factually said BOTH that the carmen walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street AND that he sent Lechmere for a policeman, then the only explanation that covers this would be if they walked in company to Bakers Row/Hanbury Street, whereupon Paul launched Lechmere for the conversation with Mizen.
Hello, Fisherman,
Yes, I see you were talking about the two newspapers which reported that Paul sent the other carman for a policeman. I suppose, if you want to make all of the reported incidents fit together, then this scenario works just as well as any.

But I recall that when I asked about the paper that reported that Cross had suggested propping up the woman, and Paul had refused to do so-- in that instance, you said most of the others had it the other way around (that Cross had refused to touch her) and you preferred to go with the majority of the papers.

Why should we worry about a minority of two papers that say something different from most of them? Maybe the reporter wasn't listening, or lost his notes, or his article was edited by someone who added something.
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.